Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: South Rift is a huge piece of conservation area well outlined in the global maps with a high and diverse ecosystem and a substantial variety of species worth conserving
Evidence B:1. The proposed area envisages biodiversity hotspots, including breeding grounds for endangered lesser flamingo. Additionally, the area spanning from Southern Kenya to Northern Tanzania, supports the richest mammal diversity in the world. It is thus of high significance
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: Way greater than 100Ha and well researched data to back it up
Evidence B:2. The EOI envisages restoring resilience of 3.5 Million hectares of rangelands while simultaneously forest loss in an area covering 150,000 hectares. This is thus a high carbon value based on the scoring figures above.
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: The applicant has explained very well how he land is managed by IPLCs which is very much the case but the fact remains that with the new land adjudication systems, and governance, IPLCs management of their lands and natural resources is limited in the sense that forests and mountains are managed under Kenya Forest Management and Wildlife in the Serengeti and Amboseli are largely managed by Kenya Wildlife Service-KWS under Kenyan Laws and policies for the management of the same.
Evidence B:3. As described in the EOI, the area is actively governed by IPLC. Similarly, the traditional governance systems features prominently in practice. This is because, while Kenyan state laws also apply in the area, traditional governance system remains strong.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: the applicant concentrated on explaining the traditional governance system very well and unfortunately forgot to explain the cultural significance. they only managed to explain the grazing significance -(eramatare)
Evidence B:4. While the EOI provides a clear and succinct historical account and traditional management of the area, it vaguely describes the area’s cultural significance. For example, it omits to show whether the area comprises sacred sites.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: Habitat loss, land fragmentation, cultural erosion, population growth among other threats are mentioned
Evidence B:5. Habitat loss and land fragmentation, compounded by climate change and its impacts are risks that can negatively impact on biodiversity if no action is taken. These are compounded by population growth and human-wildlife conflicts
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: There are very good and very supportive regulations but they all lack an implementation framework. Very good on paper but must reflect the same in reality
Evidence B:6. Kenyan laws recognize customary tenure on the basis of which IPLC-led conservation in the area covered by the EOI can take place. However, robust ownership presupposes titling, and a lot still needs to be done in this area.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: For instance the National Wildlife Strategy (2018) recognises the value of communities in wildlife management. The community land act if implemented can allow for community to own land. There is still a long way to go and there is a window of opportunity
Evidence B:7. As convincingly expressed in the EOI, Kenya’s legal and policy landscape supports IPLC-led conservation. This support has strong roots in the constitution and reflected in the wildlife policy and the community Land Act of 2016.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: A period of 12 years is good enough to implement some activities that the project can build upon
Evidence B:8. The applicant organization has piloted a project in two communities. The pilot projects have proved that communal land governance is compatible to wildlife conservation of natural resources and co existence of wildlife and people.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: With 5 co- financed activities, the projects provide complimentary support to the IPLC led project
Evidence B:9. The EOI is replete with relevant projects that are relevant and complementary to the project described in the EOI. These are funded by, among others, IUCN-SOS and the Lion Recovery Fund.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: All very well outlined in the EoI
Evidence B:Activities described are well thought out and inclusive. It is thus clear that once implemented, they would up-scale the twin objectives of the ICI.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: Very well outlined set of activities with clear outcomes all IPLC -centred
Evidence B:The proposed activities are convincingly aligned to the expected outcomes. They are achievable within the proposed timeline.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: Top notch explanation outlined very clearly– its focused on IPLC leadership and governance, management and cultural and knowledge impacts respectively.
Evidence B:The EOI proposes a multi-pronged approach which, gauged from activities proposed and objectives, it is convincingly clear that it would contribute to overcoming stumbling blocks standing on the way of IPLC’s conservation initiatives.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: Yes as outlined above, consistently and quite achievable
Evidence B:Activities and results are generally well aligned, and can be implemented within the proposed budget lines. However, the aspect of retention of cultural values compatible to conservation needed more explanation in terms of budgetary needs.
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: The actual amount of co-financing is not outlined but there is mention of some 5 co-financiers
Evidence B:An impressive list of donations relevant to the proposed project appears in the EOI, including on ecosystem connectivity funded by the IUCN and National Geographic. Combined with in-kind contribution by communities, it is clear that the EOI include concrete sources of co-funding.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: Total area is very high its 1.190,000Ha
Evidence B:The total area under improved management (hectares) proposed by the EOI is 1,190,00. This is very high, based on scores above.
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: Very well outlined as per strategy. The question was very well understood and well answered
Evidence B:The indicators are moderately aligned with the project. Missing for example, include specific cultural and livelihoods indicators such as retention of conservation compatible lifestyles or livelihoods.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: They have outlined this very well
Evidence B:The EOI is convincingly clear on strategies to ensure gains will survive expiration of the project funding. They include taping on established community governance structures, leveraged by emerging sources of donor funds. The two sources however, are not desegregated.
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: They have demonstrated this very well and even outlined that it could lead to thee first kenyas jurisdiction carbon project in the south Rift
Evidence B:The EOI reflects a clear understanding of the country’s legal and policy framework, international commitments and how the EOI is likely to contribute to their advancement. For example, it refers to Kenya’s AFR100 commitments and aim at contributing to Kenya’s climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: The only mention of women inclusivity is the La-leok resource center, there is no mention of them in any form of leadership but only as beneficiaries
Evidence B:No mention appears of how women will be involved in key leadership position, hence take part in decision making. The EOI is replete with examples and importance of women inclusion without concretely mentioning stages at which they would be involved, for example while designing priorities or only during implementation.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: The Activities are highly innovative and result oriented
Evidence B:Overall, the EOI presents innovative solutions to threats facing IPLC and biodiversity. For example, it proposes to strengthen unclear land tenure systems in order to enable IPLC to steward their natural resources and their future.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: No mention of any NGO in the leadership of this EoI
Evidence B:The organization’s general assembly comprises of leaders of the IPLC. Additionally, the director is a member of the IPLC in question. There is thus no doubt that it is an IPLC-led organization.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: The leadership is well explained and very well demonstrated relevance to the work and level of professionalism well stated with the number of years in the service
Evidence B:Both the previous projects implemented and connection of the organization’s staff/leadership to the IPLC in question demonstrate on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: The Board, the director, the Coordinator and and head of Coexistence are all very skilled proffessionals from the grassroots to national and international levels
Evidence B:The lead proponent does not include IPLC’s community-based organizations as proposed partners and the role they may play. It lists an international organization and a conservancies association (envisioned to provide technical support).
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:Based on the projects implemented in the past as well as bios of key officials, it is clear that the key proponent and its partners have full technical capacity to implement the proposed project.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: 100,000 USDs annually
Evidence B:The main proponent’s annual budget that is currently implementing is between US$100,000-1,000,000. Its funds come from at least 10 sources with no source providing more than 20%.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: They answered no to this
Evidence B:The organization’s answer is no, indicating that it has no experience with safeguards and other standards required by GEF.